|
In ''Mazzei v. Commissioner'', 61 T.C. 497 (1974), the United States Tax Court ruled that a taxpayer could not consider $20,000 lost to a fraudulent counterfeiting scheme as a basis for a deduction under section 165(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”). ==Background== Petitioner (taxpayer) operated a sheet metal company in Hopewell, Virginia. An employee introduced the petitioner to several individuals who claimed to be in possession of a machine capable of reproducing U.S. currency. The petitioner agreed to provide $100 bills to the counterfeiters to be used in the reproduction process. Upon completion of the process, the bills (and presumably some compensation) were to be returned. Petitioner acquired $20,000 in $100 bills and brought them to New York City to meet with the counterfeiters. While meeting with the counterfeiters at an apartment, two armed men claiming to be law enforcement officers entered and took the money at gunpoint. The petitioner found a legitimate police officer shortly thereafter but was unable to secure the return of the $20,000. The police discovered that the “counterfeiting device” was nothing more than a black box incapable of reproducing currency. The petitioner took a deduction of $19,900 (the first $100 of a section 165(c)(3) loss is not deductible) on his federal income tax return under section 165(c)(2) or (3) of the Code. The IRS issued a notice of deficiency, informing the petitioner that the loss lacked adequate substantiation, and that even were the loss substantiated, allowing the deduction would contradict public policy. Section 165(c)(2) allows a deduction for “losses incurred in any transaction entered into for profit, though not connected with a trade or business”, and section 165(c)(3) allows a deduction for losses not incurred in connection with a business or income-producing venture, which “arise from fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty, ''or from theft''”. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Mazzei v. Commissioner」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|